4 ms·

I call BS on this (as in I disagree with the point, not that I doubt it was said), if only for the reason that 3D printers are allowed to proliferate. You coul

by Kamq 3y ago

I call BS on this (as in I disagree with the point, not that I doubt it was said), if only for the reason that 3D printers are allowed to proliferate. You could argue that 3D printers are still kinda shitty, and only making incremental improvements, but that's the trajectory I would expect replicators to follow as well. They'll be sold for industrial purposes for companies to make spare parts first and then to rich/upper-class nerds to make exotic things and mini-figs or something until incremental improvements result in a commodity version. It probably would get patented, and stagnate for 20-ish years, and then see an explosion of innovation when the patent runs out (unlike copyrights, patents regularly are allowed to expire). Can't disagree with the conspiracy theorists part, though. That one seems bang-on like what will happen.

egypturnash 3y ago
3d printers are the shitty version of replicators. Build a 3d printer that operates at the atomic level, and you have a replicator. This is not a trivial problem to solve. Figuring out how to fabricate chips at a slightly smaller scale is the work of huge research divisions that build giant machines to do it. But. Once you have this, and can put it into an appliance-sized box that can make another copy of itself out of a trivial investment of resources, things get really weird and capitalism probably breaks a lot of people and/or itself. Until then, though, it'll be business as usual. Patents and copyright will be there to protect the immense investment the corporations made into making stuff a few nanometers smaller, and politicians and pundits sucking on those corporate cashflow teats will be there to help.
- Kamq 3y ago
  > 3d printers are the shitty version of replicators. That's fair. I was thinking of the ability to work with arbitrary matter as a fundamental change rather than incremental improvement, but I can see the point. > This is not a trivial problem to solve. Of course not, and if I implied such, I apologize. > things get really weird and capitalism probably breaks a lot of people and/or itself. Probably, property only really makes sense in a world with scarcity. Which is why intellectual property always seemed weird to me.
gymbeaux 3y ago
Things are invented and the legislation to restrict it and for select people to profit off of it comes later. Pirating music from the internet used to be legal, or at least not strictly illegal. Internet itself was uncapped and only limited by the physical hardware (eg the modem or the copper wire carrying the data). I’m sure there are many other, better examples… but believe you me, there will be laws floated and probably passed that restrict household 3D printing as we know it.

by Kamq 3y ago

egypturnash 3y ago

3d printers are the shitty version of replicators. Build a 3d printer that operates at the atomic level, and you have a replicator. This is not a trivial problem to solve. Figuring out how to fabricate chips at a slightly smaller scale is the work of huge research divisions that build giant machines to do it. But. Once you have this, and can put it into an appliance-sized box that can make another copy of itself out of a trivial investment of resources, things get really weird and capitalism probably breaks a lot of people and/or itself. Until then, though, it'll be business as usual. Patents and copyright will be there to protect the immense investment the corporations made into making stuff a few nanometers smaller, and politicians and pundits sucking on those corporate cashflow teats will be there to help.

Kamq 3y ago
> 3d printers are the shitty version of replicators. That's fair. I was thinking of the ability to work with arbitrary matter as a fundamental change rather than incremental improvement, but I can see the point. > This is not a trivial problem to solve. Of course not, and if I implied such, I apologize. > things get really weird and capitalism probably breaks a lot of people and/or itself. Probably, property only really makes sense in a world with scarcity. Which is why intellectual property always seemed weird to me.

gymbeaux 3y ago

Things are invented and the legislation to restrict it and for select people to profit off of it comes later. Pirating music from the internet used to be legal, or at least not strictly illegal. Internet itself was uncapped and only limited by the physical hardware (eg the modem or the copper wire carrying the data). I’m sure there are many other, better examples… but believe you me, there will be laws floated and probably passed that restrict household 3D printing as we know it.